Wager for Trump Supporters

[_cinepro]

It's a good idea. I'm not a Trump supporter, but it will be interesting to see how these metrics change over the next four (or eight?) years, with some caveats.

I don't think "cop killings" or the gasoline price are a reflection of a President's policies or actions, so I won't be paying much attention to those. Also, inflation is a function of the Fed's judgment, which the President isn't supposed to have much influence over. I can't really think of what a President would to to raise or lower inflation (and it's debatable about when that would be a good or bad thing, or what the ideal rate would be). Home ownership is also a double-edged sword, since we've seen what can happen if that number rises on a shaky foundation of bad loans and overstretched borrowers.

Also, do we want food-stamp recipients to go up or down?

And everything should have a source, so we can make sure the numbers four years from now are from similar sources.

[_cinepro]

For further consideration...

How Much Does the President Really Matter?

[_Some Schmo]

How Much Does the President Really Matter?

He has veto power, and with a GOP controlled congress, that matters. My biggest fear is that the guys who write the legislation will never explain it accurately to orangutan, and you know damn well he won't read it himself. He'll be all, Just give me the broad strokes. Where's the executive summary?

[_Res Ipsa]

For further consideration...

How Much Does the President Really Matter?

According to the GOP, Obama has single handedly destroyed all our freedoms, so I'd say it matters quite a bit.

More seriously, the regulatory apparatus that the president heads is, I think, pretty consequential. Also, Congress has all but ceded it's war making authority to the president, which is pretty significant.

[_Kevin Graham]

It's a good idea. I'm not a Trump supporter, but it will be interesting to see how these metrics change over the next four (or eight?) years, with some caveats.

I don't think "cop killings" or the gasoline price are a reflection of a President's policies or actions, so I won't be paying much attention to those. Also, inflation is a function of the Fed's judgment, which the President isn't supposed to have much influence over. I can't really think of what a President would to to raise or lower inflation (and it's debatable about when that would be a good or bad thing, or what the ideal rate would be). Home ownership is also a double-edged sword, since we've seen what can happen if that number rises on a shaky foundation of bad loans and overstretched borrowers.

Also, do we want food-stamp recipients to go up or down?

And everything should have a source, so we can make sure the numbers four years from now are from similar sources.

I agree with all of this but I thought these would be interesting categories to use since they have been the subject of Right Wing criticism throughout eight years of the Obama administration.

[_EAllusion]

The main cause of the labor participation rate going down is Baby Boomers retiring. That trend isn't going to reverse by 2020.

The automation boom is on the cusp of happening. Lord knows what that'll do to unemployment in the short term. Driverless cars are just starting to hit the market. You know how many people have professional driving jobs? It's a lot.

The economy is actually doing really good at the moment. That probably will continue in the immediate future. Obama's approval ratings are as high as they've ever been in significant part because of this. Those numbers will elevate Trump's numbers in the short-term. He won despite Herbert Hoover-like popularity. Imagine what it is going to be like as his approval numbers climb. Remember, for incumbents those numbers are mostly tied to how people feel about things like the state of the economy.

It's anyone's guess where it goes from here starting in late 2017. That kind of thing is very hard to predict. Democrats need a recession timed to one of the two upcoming major elections to not be regulated to generational minority party status.

[_Res Ipsa]

The main cause of the labor participation rate going down is Baby Boomers retiring. That trend isn't going to reverse by 2020.

The automation boom is on the cusp of happening. Lord knows what that'll do to unemployment in the short term. Driverless cars are just starting to hit the market. You know how many people have professional driving jobs? It's a lot.

The economy is actually doing really good at the moment. That probably will continue in the immediate future. Obama's approval ratings are as high as they've ever been in significant part because of this. Those numbers will elevate Trump's numbers in the short-term. He won despite Herbert Hoover-like popularity. Imagine what it is going to be like as his approval numbers climb. Remember, for incumbents those numbers are mostly tied to how people feel about things like the state of the economy.

It's anyone's guess where it goes from here starting in late 2017. That kind of thing is very hard to predict. Democrats need a recession timed to one of the two upcoming major elections to not be regulated to generational minority party status.

I agree about the labor participation rate. But Ajax seems to believe conservative government can make it go down, so why not conclude it.

You seemed to me to be pretty sure that a recession would hit before 2020 when it looked like Clinton would win the presidency. Are you less sure now? Or am I over interpreting?

[_EAllusion]

So the president has very little influence on the economy in practice. However, there is a huge caveat to that. The federal government actually has a massive influence on the US economy and the president in turn has a very significant influence on the direction of the federal government. It's just that differences in policy between major parties is so minor that it doesn't make for all that big of a difference when it comes to the ups and downs of economic circumstance. This allows other factors to wash out most of presidential influence.

However, that doesn't mean a president can't take major actions to influence the economy. If the US embraces full-throated protectionism and starts cancelling trade deals, which is one of the very few policy areas Trump has remained consistent on in his life, that quite likely would cause major recession. It's unclear if that can actually make it through a Republican congress, but it'd be one of those rare circumstances where a president would be electorally punished for an actual bad consequence of their policies.

[_Res Ipsa]

So the president has very little influence on the economy in practice. However, there is a huge caveat to that. The federal government actually has a massive influence on the US economy and the president in turn has a very significant influence on the direction of the federal government. It's just that differences in policy between major parties is so minor that it doesn't make for all that big of a difference when it comes to the ups and downs of economic circumstance. This allows other factors to wash out most of presidential influence.

However, that doesn't mean a president can't take major actions to influence the economy. If the US embraces full-throated protectionism and starts cancelling trade deals, which is one of the very few policy areas Trump has remained consistent on in his life, that quite likely would cause major recession. It's unclear if that can actually make it through a Republican congress, but it'd be one of those rare circumstances where a president would be electorally punished for an actual bad consequence of their policies.

Thanks. What do you see as the likely impact of passing the Ryan budget?

[_EAllusion]

I agree about the labor participation rate. But Ajax seems to believe conservative government can make it go down, so why not conclude it.

You seemed to me to be pretty sure that a recession would hit before 2020 when it looked like Clinton would win the presidency. Are you less sure now? Or am I over interpreting?

It's more likely than not going to happen. I'm saying just saying it's hard to predict. To help the non-incumbent party, the recession also has to time correctly to happen so it's on-going in the quarter or so before the election happens. Reagan got a major recession during his first term, but America was in strong recovery by 1984 and the trend caused him to win a landslide.

The problem for Democrats here is much deeper than the problem for Republicans if they didn't win in 2016. First, and most importantly, Republicans have on the docket plans to absolutely smash Democratic avenues of support through legal and extra-legal means. It's gonna happen. Second, the fact that the Republican/Democrat split has become a rural/urban split significantly favors Republicans in a system like ours where proportional representation is balanced by local self-determination. Republican votes are significantly over represented and they own a very large natural edge in Senate elections the public hasn't seen yet because Democrats keep winning national elections. Finally, districts over the country are heavily gerrymandered in Repubicans' favor which gives them a natural edge both in Congress and in state legislatures. So the deck is already a stacked against Democrats.

Republicans could've afforded to do so-so in 2018 and 2020 and still come out either on top or with enough strength to keep on trucking. If Democrats don't get strong victories, up to and including landslide, in one or both of those, they are royally screwed in the next census realignment and probably the one after that too. In that case, many members of this board will be dead before they see a a robust Democrat party again barring some sort of absolutely catastrophic, world-altering event that no one wants to see.